McKnight v. Wells

• Decision Date: 30 April 1821
• Citation: 1 Mo. 13
• Parties: MCKNIGHT & BRADY v. WELLS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 Mo. 13

MCKNIGHT & BRADY

v.WELLS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1821.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY.

COOK J.

This was an action of detinue by Wells, against the appellants, to recover the boy Dick, in the declaration mentioned. The defendants plead non detinet, and, after verdict for the plaintiff, moved for a new trial, and excepted to the opinion of the Circuit Court refusing it. The bill of exceptions contains the evidence on both sides, and is the foundation of the points relied on here. It is objected, however, by the counsel for the appellee, that no decision of the Circuit Court, granting or refusing a new trial, is subject to be revised by this court. On this point, there are decisions both ways, and this court deem it not material in this case to determine on which side the weight of authority lies. As this is an appeal under the statute which provides, that, on such appeals, it shall be the duty of the court to examine the record and award a new trial--reverse or affirm the judgment of the court below, or give such judgment as that court ought to have given, according to justice--the appeal, according to the statute, is matter of right, and on such appeal it is the duty of the court to examine the whole record, and correct any error which may exist. But a rule indiscriminately subjecting the decisions of the Circuit Court, in matters to be decided by an exercise of discretion alone, to the revision of another tribunal, which could not be correctly informed of the facts and circumstances which might, with propriety, influence the Circuit Courts in the exercise of such discretion, and one which would indiscriminately exempt all decisions of these courts, on application for a new trial, from the revising power of this court, nothwitstanding such decision may be founded on, or involve settled and established principles of law, appear to this court equally inconvenient and unreasonable; and it appears to this court that those decisions which seem to deny to the appellate court the power of revising such judgments of the inferior courts, are founded on the former description of case; and when the principle is broadly laid down, that such decisions are not subjects of revision, the court would, perhaps, be better understood to mean, that such decision, in the particular case, was not a subject of error, being the result of the exercise of discretion on facts and circumstances which cannot, in the nature of things, be...